Natural law is one of the oldestconcepts, about which politicians, lawyers and philosophers "broke the spears," and to this day this question has remained open. Although if you follow the development of this theory, you can see that, despite the resistance of the opponents, it has practically won the sphere of international legal relations. First of all, it is interesting because it originated in the era of antiquity, and maybe even earlier, but it was much later that it was perceived as a special teaching. Finally, from the New Time, she became one of two opposing theories in the field of jurisprudence.
Although the understanding that certain properties are givenman by nature, really formed very early, in Ancient Greece it served as a justification for slavery, because even the great Aristotle believed that some kind of people are slaves by nature, and therefore others who were lucky to be born free, should rule. Ancient Roman lawyers own the very concept of "natural law" (or jus naturale), but in its definition they did not go beyond very abstract reasoning. In the era of the Middle Ages, theories of natural and divine standards were combined, and therefore the canonists who developed the norms of church legislation began to use this term, often on the basis of political considerations.
On the other hand, in various sacred ormythological texts or moral maxims expressed in literary works or folk art, certain ideals gradually evolved about what truth, justice, equality, and so on. They were also understood as a kind of natural law, because they were the yardstick of how a person should behave and what his dignity meant. New time seemed to be the catalyst of this theory and proclaimed that there are obvious things given to people from nature - this is life, freedom, equality - and belonging to them by the very fact of birth. Philosophical ideas that raised these truths on the shield were advanced by Hugo Grotius and many thinkers of the Enlightenment, in particular Holbach and Rousseau.
Natural law as a principle began to be fixedin legislative acts, such as the revolutionary French Declaration of 1789 on "sacred natural rights" or the American Declaration of Independence. Although it should be clarified that the French revolutionaries, writing an exalted text about the inalienability of freedom and equality, excluded women from there, which subsequently gave rise to the movement of suffragism. This is very revealing for the development of this theory, because even many of those who shared the thesis that some privileges are an integral part of human nature, in practice, when dealing with a society where different groups of people have opposite interests, they justified those laws , which protect the powers of ruling individuals and classes. Therefore, in the XIX century, when this understanding of the structure of human society was realized, the concepts of natural and positive law began to openly confront each other.
Defending the priority of norms and ideals of laws "fromnature ", philosophers often based on the notion of good, not good. Natural law, both in its classical and modern sense, is a collection of such types of goods that can not be reduced either to each other or to any other elements. Life, dignity, sociality, freedom and other similar things and rules of behavior should be provided to a person in a complex so that he can live, not exist. One can not be neglected for the sake of another, because they "work" only in the aggregate. They can not be taken away as punishment or abandoned by any of them. Only then is the attainable good. A positive theory is based on "good", that is, on the notion that one can sacrifice something for the sake of greater good or someone for the sake of common happiness.
Hence the concept on which thenatural human rights, that is, the doctrine of authority given from birth. No power has given him these privileges, he is not obliged to anyone for them, and no one should thank anyone. Moreover, neither the state, nor the party leader, nor a group of people can take away from anybody these opportunities, even in the most democratic way. Any alienation of such rights can be legally interpreted only as their violation, which requires restoration. Strictly speaking, the source of these natural powers lies in the notion of dignity, as Jean-Jacques Rousseau argued, since this very property is not one that is inherent in one people and is absent in others, but a common social characteristic for all representatives of the human species.